Please look at the attached picture or use the link to verify the bug.
As you can see in the BOM tree if you look at the line with the part
QLTPOUCH SCOOPER FRESH MINT 0.6G 80MGP
You can see that it has a scrap factor of 12.36% which leads to a ext.Qty/top =13,483
If you then look at the row below with the part PCHSCOOPER FRESH MINT 0.6G 80MGP
You can see that it has a quantity per top = 0,6 and no scrapfactor.
This should lead to the following calculation for its extended quantity per top
Qty/Top * Scrap factor * build Qty (where build Qty equals the ext.Qty/top for QLTPOUCH)
However it ignores the decimals from the ext.Qty/top for QLTPOUCH and only calculates
0,6 * 1 * 13 =7,8 but it should have been 0,6 * 1 * 13,4832 = 8,09
If we then look at the next row with the component INGFLEECE 8732 555-G
We can see that it once again ignores the decimals from the prevoious calculation
but here it also ignores the scrapfactor.
it calculates 0,041470 * 1 * 7= 0,290290
IT should have been
0,041470 * 1,1236 * 8,09 =0,37696
This needs to be fixed ASAP As it does not calculate the BOM correctly.
futhermore, when you increase the build quantity on the top part all sub boms ignores scrap factors and does not calculate the Ext.Qty/Top correctly for any of the parts.
See attached picture.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention and including those details! Our engineering team is in the middle of a project right now to make big changes in the BOM Overview page, so this information will be extremely valuable in helping us ensure that those changes are as robust as possible.
In the meantime, can you help us understand what your goal here is? I understand that you’re saying that the calculations aren’t correct when you set a different Build Qty on that page, but what is driving the urgency you’re presenting here? What is the problem you’re trying to solve right now that you’re looking to this page for? I ask because the changes above probably won’t be available until the next release at the earliest, so if we can understand your goal a little better we might be able to find a different way to help in the short term.
As a final thought, I see that you’re looking at the “New” version of the BOM Overview page. Have you tried changing to the old version, and seeing if the calculations there are more in line with what you’re expecting? If clicking the “Use Old Version” link on that page doesn’t work, you may have to first click “View” on the left-hand side to go back to the main part record page, then change to the old version there, then navigate back to the BOM Overview page.
Hi,
Thanks for your quick response.
I am in the process of changing how we produce our proudcts.
We are moving away from a unit of measure in units and instead weighing our finished products. which means quite an overhaul of our BOM’s
So I was redesigning our BOMS and thought I had it all figured out and implemented the changes on a few of our BOM’s.
However, after having placed an order I realized it was wrong.
I had some flaw in my Math.
So I went back and recalculated,changed the BOM and tried creating an order again… wrong again.
That was to time consuming so I turned to the BOM owerview page to get a faster feedback on my next change.
But that gave me some really strange results… which threw me in a loop and made me question all my calculations.
So after recalculating everything again and cross checking everything against the BOM overview I realized that the calculations there did not perform correctly.
So as I could not get feedback from the system on my changes to my BOM’s to verify that they would be correct I felt I could not continue that work as it is quite cumbersome to make a lot of BOM changes.
Thats why it was urgent to me.
However I did as you suggested and changed to the old version …
lo and behold, it calculates correctly and the last error in my BOM was an easy fix.
I was a bit embaressed that I did not try the old version at first. But now I remebered that I could not switch to the old version when I tried earlier. But it is as you say, one has to go to view first and then click old version.
TLDR
Old version calculates correctly and gives me the feedback I need for the work I am doing.
Thanks 4 your |-|€1|o !
I’m so glad to hear the old version gave you the information you needed!
As I said, we are in the midst if an overhaul of the new version of that page, and your example here will be invaluable in helping us make sure that everything is working as it needs to before we release it.
@cetecerp13
I might add that the scrap factor field does not accept comma.
So if you are in a language that uses comma as a decimal separator it will display an error saying it is not a valid value.
So 11,3% is not a valid value but 11.3% is.
It is not a part of the BOM overview per say … but it is kind of related.
Thanks for letting us know about the number input issue. We had some discussion about this internally, and we agree that it is something that could be dealt with better in the app.
Generally “localization” is dealt with by your browser, and it is responsible for making sure that numbers get parsed in such a way that the functions using those numbers are able to operate on them correctly. As we make transitions to new versions of the pages in the app, the new technologies being used in those new versions do enable us to better leverage the localization being done by the browser.
The most common place this comes up is usually currency, and over time we’ve made great strides in making sure we’re handling internationally formatted currency values based on the currency in use. However it has not come up for us before as an issue in non-currency fields.
All that to say, if you’re using an old version of a page we cannot guarantee using the internationally formatted numbers will work. But if you are on a new version of a page and see this issue we would like to know about it, because as we continue moving towards the new versions we want to make sure they’re as robust as possible.
Hi,
It is not a big issue… I just thought that it was woth mentioning as you were making an overhaul in the BOM overview page and that it might be something you needed to adress.
But if you say it works with the new version it is all fine.
As soon as we can use the new version all the way this will not be an issue at all.
